Imperilled birds and First Peoples’ land and sea Country in Australia

ABSTRACT

For First Peoples across Australia, birds have important connections to kin and Country. We draw on a recent analysis of all Australia’s threatened bird taxa to identify on whose traditional Country they occur. Of the 201 imperilled (threatened or Near Threatened) bird taxa facing threats within Australian territory (including Commonwealth waters and offshore islands), 64% occur on lands and waters to which at least 463 First Peoples’ groups have a connection. Fourteen bird taxa occur only on Country of a single First Peoples’ group while 15 taxa occur on Country of over 50 First Peoples’ groups. Four First Peoples’ groups, in north Queensland and south-eastern Australia, have over 20 imperilled bird taxa on their Country. Taxa on First Peoples’ Country face 78% of the total national threat load on imperilled birds and have 75% of both the research and management needs for relieving threats. All the threats are a consequence of colonisation, suggesting that supporting First Peoples to manage the threats to birds is a moral, and potentially legal, responsibility. Many First Peoples have chosen to engage actively in the conservation of imperilled species but there are numerous additional opportunities for monitoring and active management of Country that will yield benefits. Our analysis can help First Peoples identify which birds on their Country are listed as threatened under western conventions and that they may wish to help conserve; and assist conservation managers to identify First Peoples who might wish to lead or become more involved in imperilled bird management.

POLICY HIGHLIGHTS

• The Global Biodiversity Framework strongly supports maximising the involvement of First Peoples in environmental management.

• There are at least 460 First Peoples’ groups on which imperilled birds occur, which provides a wide range of opportunities for management if people so choose.

• The Countries of many First Peoples’ groups supports 10 or more imperilled bird taxa, suggesting that support for Country management will often benefit many taxa.

• The depth and longevity of First Peoples’ connection to Country provides them with a perspective lacking in much management.

• Because all threats to imperilled birds on First Peoples’ Country are derived from settlers, there is a moral, and possible legal, case for supporting First Peoples to manage them.

KEYWORDS:

• Indigenous
• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
• traditional owners
• fire management
• invasive species
• monitoring
• threat load

Introduction

Principles developed under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) in 2022, which aims to halt the loss of species and declining ecosystems, include explicit language that expresses respect for the rights of Indigenous Peoples, and for contributions of traditional knowledge to biodiversity conservation (Convention on Biological Diversity 2023). Indigenous Peoples are referred to in 7 of the 23 targets, where they are highlighted as integral components of the framework. In Australia, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples (hereafter ‘First Peoples’¹) make up just 3.2% of the national population (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2022), yet 870,000 km², or 50% of the national conservation reserve system, is made up by Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) managed by Traditional Owners and Indigenous ranger groups (Figure 1; National Indigenous Australians Agency 2023).

Figure 1. Map of lands across Australia where First Peoples' land management is recognised through formal processes including Native title determinations, Indigenous protected areas (IPA) and various types of management and co-management arrangements. Spatial data on Native title determinations from the National Native Title Tribunal (2023); on Indigenous freehold, other special rights and Indigenous management from Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (2020); and for the overlay of Indigenous protected areas from Commonwealth of Australia (2023).

Similarly, most recovery plans or comparable management planning instruments for Australian threatened birds are increasingly noting the importance of involving First Peoples and knowledge systems to support conservation, although this is a recent development (Duncan et al. 2018). These commitments in planning documents recognise that First Peoples have a world view built on a strong affinity with local ecosystems, cultural law (lore; see Ngurra et al. 2023) and customs and beliefs that relate to nature (Swiderska et al. 2021). This connection is generally associated with the concept of Country, a term that represents interlinked spiritual, cosmological, cultural, ecological and physical environmental attributes (Rose et al. 2003).

Birds have been integral to the cultural practice and livelihoods of First Peoples for millennia (Clarke 2023). They play a major role in many songlines, are sung and danced in ceremony, act as totems, for both individuals and groups, and many have long been managed as key food resources (e.g. see Garde 2017; Bangalang et al. 2022). In contemporary conservation, many First Peoples ranger groups, as well as Traditional Owners of Country, protect Country and biodiversity, including many threatened bird species (Rose et al. 2003). However, the concept of ‘threatened species’ is derived from a world view founded in western science and, for First Peoples in Australia, does not necessarily relate directly to culturally significant or culturally identified species, although they are keenly aware of recent losses of species that were once common (Ziembicki et al. 2013). However, while it is culturally significant or culturally identified bird species that have central roles in the conservation of Country and culture, many positive and cost-effective conservation outcomes that benefit conventionally defined threatened species can nevertheless be achieved when Indigenous Peoples’ rights and knowledge are respected through locally owned nature conservation (Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2021).

Indigenous land and sea managers are actively involved in caring for Country in many parts of Australia. Many of these groups receive external funding from various sources to support this effort (Pert et al. 2020). The Indigenous Ranger Program has existed under various guises since the 1980s and has grown to now include 129 ranger groups (National Indigenous Australians Agency 2023). These ranger programmes support First Peoples to combine traditional knowledge with conservation training to protect and manage their land, sea and culture (Pert et al. 2020; Commonwealth of Australia 2023). Some threatened species recovery teams are led by or are working with local First Peoples’ groups to support monitoring and on-ground management efforts (Golden-shouldered Parrot Recovery Team 2019; Lilleyman et al. 2022; Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [CSIRO] 2023) and many threatened species occur on Country and are the subject of active conservation by First Peoples (Renwick et al. 2017; Leiper et al. 2018). For example, Leiper et al. (2018) noted that, in 2015–2016, Indigenous ranger groups were undertaking projects involving 31% of the 132 bird taxa then listed as threatened under Australia’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). While there is still a long way to go in terms of First Peoples’ engagement and participation, legal recognition of Country and strengthening Indigenous-led governance (Goolmeer et al. 2022), cultural knowledge and practices by First Peoples can support many aspects of biodiversity conservation and the environmental management through a shared understanding of taxa and the interconnectedness of nature and Country.

The ubiquity of First Peoples’ continuing connections to land across Australia and its islands is slowly becoming recognised under constitutional law and by other Australians (Altman and Markham 2015). The first lands returned to First Peoples’ ownership under Australian law were in areas that are remote from major population centres. For such areas, the only people managing most threats to imperilled birds on those lands are First Peoples (e.g. White-throated Grasswren Amytornis woodwardi). However, even in areas now intensively altered by settlers, First Peoples retain connections to traditional lands even where this connection is not currently recognised under Australian law (Kingsley et al. 2009). Continuing connections to land and the determination of First Peoples to maintain and strengthen them provide important opportunities for collaboration between First Peoples and conservationists wishing to ensure land is managed to support species persistence or recovery. While the relationship between First Peoples and conservation advocacy is complex and evolving, there exists a ‘propitious niche’ (Moorcroft et al. 2012) where the different meanings of threatened birds to different cultures coincide to the mutual benefit of both cultures and of the species themselves.

To foster opportunities for First Peoples to engage in the conservation of threatened birds should they so choose, the Action Plan for Australian Birds (Garnett and Baker 2021) attempted to include the names of First Peoples on whose lands or waters the threatened birds occur. While acknowledging the list of First Peoples was likely to be indicative rather than comprehensive, Garnett and Baker (2021) hoped to generate conversations, engage resources and foster actions that connect First Peoples’ aspirations to look after Country with the threatened birds that need looking after. In this paper we: (i) summarise and update the information on the distributional overlap of bird occurrence and First Peoples from Garnett and Baker (2021); (ii) identify the benefits that could accrue to the imperilled birds and to the First Peoples wishing to engage in their conservation; and (iii) explore the types of action that could be taken by First Peoples’ groups and those wishing to support them based on current knowledge of threats and how to mitigate them.

Methods

Biological scope

We consider all imperilled Australian bird taxa (i.e. those considered threatened [Critically Endangered, Endangered and Vulnerable] and Near Threatened under the International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN] Red List guidelines) in the Action Plan of Australian Birds 2020 (Garnett and Baker 2021). This list uses ultrataxa (the finest scale of division for a taxon – either species of monotypic or subspecies if the species is polytypic) as the basis for discussion and excludes introduced species or vagrants (see Garnett and Baker [2021] for further details on taxonomy and IUCN status reporting). Most of these imperilled taxa are also recognised under Australian legislation (the EPBC Act) as threatened, and accorded special protection. Note that we use English language vernacular names in this paper, but acknowledge that First Peoples have different names for these birds, many of which convey complex and nuanced information about identity and lore.

Geographical scope

For all imperilled birds listed in this paper, we attempt to provide a list of First Peoples’ groups with which the birds’ distributions overlap. This applies to any part of mainland Australia, Tasmania and most coastal islands, regardless of tenure. We do not include threatened birds from Oceanic Islands for which there is no evidence of pre-colonial settlement or where, like Norfolk Island, settlement did not persist (Holdaway and Anderson 2001). We also do not include Kangaroo Island in our analyses because this was occupied rarely if at all at the time of settlement, even though it retains cultural significance for the Kaurna and Ngarrindjeri Peoples from the nearby mainland and may have been visited occasionally (Draper 2015). While the Furneaux Group have a similar prehistory, palawa people from Tasmania were forced to move there and the truwana Rangers now have substantial land management responsibilities there (National Indigenous Australians Agency 2023).

First Peoples

No digital spatial layer exists for Australian First Peoples. Instead, we identified the names and Country of 463 First Peoples from online searches relating to the areas where each taxon occurs and linked that to information on First Peoples corporations, language groups, Traditional Owner groups, etc. (Supplementary Table S1) following guidance from the Australian Institute for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (2023). Where possible, we built on land claim information, both settled and in progress, including adopting the spelling used in Land Claims (Native Title Registrar 2023). For areas not subject to land claims, we sought public information from websites of Indigenous Corporations as well as the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations (Commonwealth of Australia 2008), from welcomes to Country in towns within or close to threatened species distributions, and any other relevant and credible websites, where possible checking with local First Peoples’ groups as appropriate. While this exercise had been conducted for individual taxa during preparation of the accounts in Garnett and Baker (2021), First Peoples’ groups were not listed where taxa occurred on Country of >50 groups. We also checked in detail listings where only one group had been identified to ensure none were inadvertently overlooked. We note that some mobile taxa may not occur frequently on Country of a particular group (e.g. taxa like Australian Painted-snipe Rostratula australis, Princess Parrot Polytelis alexandrae) but have included Country where such taxa have been recorded, even if infrequently. We nevertheless acknowledge that the list of First Peoples is unlikely to be comprehensive and some First Peoples’ groups will have been omitted, mis-spelt or included inappropriately – for example, by using the name of a language rather than the name used by a People to refer to themselves. We also recognise that some parts of Country across Australia will have changed over time or may be contested between First Peoples’ groups. As result, where we were aware that boundary ambiguities exist, we have noted all groups that might retain a connection to the land in question as many First Peoples have connections with birds and their habitats regardless of the status of contested Country. Finally, we acknowledge that the mapping was most difficult in places where management of Country is not the responsibility of those who own it (see discussion of mapping Country in Blackburn 2002).

To intersect the two layers, we overlaid outlines of the bird distributions used to determine Area of Occupancy in Garnett and Baker (2021) on the areas we could ascribe to each First Peoples’ group. In cases where there was ambiguity because boundaries were fuzzy, we erred on the side of inclusion.

Threat impact, actions required and monitoring needs

Data on threats to, and their impacts on, imperilled birds were drawn from information assembled for Garnett and Baker (2021) and summarised using the approach and weightings in Garnett et al. (2019) and updated as described in Garnett et al. (2024). Following the IUCN (2023), the impact of each threat is given a score based on its timing (current, past or prospective), its extent (proportion of a taxon’s range affected) and its severity (the rate of population decline caused by the threat within its range). Threats and the actions needed to ameliorate them were classified using the approach of Kearney et al. (2023). National threat loads (i.e. the total weighted score of the impact of each threat on a species summed across all threats) were obtained from Garnett et al. (2024).

The knowledge of how to manage threats and the extent to which that knowledge is being applied were also drawn from Garnett et al. (2019) and updated as described in Garnett et al. (2024), with each threat being scored on a 7-point scale from no understanding or management through to the highest level of knowledge and best practice management. Monitoring data, based on a 10-point scale, are drawn from Verdon et al. (2024) as are data on which taxa are currently the subject of monitoring by Indigenous ranger groups or other First Peoples.

Analysis

We present our results descriptively as we do not think the state or type of knowledge assembled will benefit from statistical analysis. For each taxon we tabulated the number of First Peoples on whose Country it occurred and vice versa, the number of taxa with distributions that intersect with the Country of each First Peoples’ group. We then used data on the research and management needs of each taxon (see Garnett et al. 2018, 2024) to list the types of management action that might be required to support conservation of the taxa. We note that all taxa need monitoring. We acknowledge that this does not include the environmental, cultural, knowledge-sharing or knowledge-building actions First Peoples’ groups might identify that are also required to support these birds to recover and flourish.

Results

Taxa

Most (129 of 219; i.e. 59%) imperilled Australian bird taxa occur on Country with active First Peoples’ engagement (Garnett and Baker 2021). The imperilled taxa not occurring on First Peoples’ land are mostly endemic to oceanic islands. The terrestrial ranges of 14 taxa now occurs only on Country of a single First Peoples’ group (Table 1; see Supplementary Table S2 for details). This includes one taxon that may be extinct. At the other end of the scale, 15 taxa occur on Country of 50 or more First Peoples (Table 2, Figure 2(a)) including 3 that are Endangered but for which their small, sparsely distributed population encompass large parts of Australia.

Figure 2. The extent to which the ranges of Australian imperilled bird taxa intersect with the Country of First Peoples’ groups: (a) number of groups for each threatened bird taxa; (b) number of taxa for each group.

Table 1. First Peoples’ groups whose Country now supports the entire terrestrial range of a threatened bird taxon within Australia. Names and extinction risk of the taxa (International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List status, as given in Garnett and Baker 2021; see Supplementary Table S2 for details).

First Peoples group	Taxon name	Extinction risk
Barkandji	Grey Range Thick-billed Grasswren Amytornis modestus obscurior	CR
Ngiyampaa	Mukarrthippi Grasswren Amytornis striatus striatus	CR
Nukunu	Flinders Ranges Chestnut-rumped Heathwren Calamanthus pyrrhopygius pedleri	NT
palawa	Shy Albatross Thalassarche cauta	NT
	Tasmanian Masked Owl Tyto novaehollandiae castanops	EN
	Tasmanian Azure Kingfisher Ceyx azureus diemenensis	VU
Tiwi	Tiwi Masked Owl Tyto novaehollandiae melvillensis	EN
	Tiwi Hooded Robin Melanodryas cucullata melvillensis	CR(PE)
	Tiwi Horsfield’s Bushlark Mirafra javanica melvillensis	VU
truwana	Furneaux White-fronted Tern Sterna striata incerta	EN
Wagyl Kaip	Noisy Scrub-bird Atrichornis clamosus	EN
	Western Bristlebird Dasyornis longirostris	EN
	Heath Western Whipbird Psophodes nigrogularis nigrogularis	EN
Wurundjeri	Helmeted Honeyeater Lichenostomus melanops cassidix	CR

CR (PE): Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct), CR: Critically Endangered, EN: Endangered, VU: Vulnerable, NT: Near Threatened.

Table 2. Threatened Australian bird taxa occurring on Country of ≥ 50 First Peoples, the number of groups and the extinction risk of the taxa (International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List status, as given in Garnett and Baker 2021).

Taxon name	No. groups	Extinction risk
Malleefowl Leipoa ocellata	52	VU
Eastern White-throated Needletail Hirundapus caudacutus caudacutus	130	VU
Australasian Bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus	51	EN
Australian Painted-snipe Rostratula australis	73	EN
Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata	55	VU
Latham’s Snipe Gallinago hardwickii	124	VU
Southern Barking Owl Ninox connivens connivens	108	NT
South-eastern Boobook Ninox boobook boobook	212	NT
Western Boobook Ninox boobook ocellata	316	NT
Red Goshawk Erythrotriorchis radiatus	184	EN
Grey Falcon Falco hypoleucos	165	VU
Blue-winged Parrot Neophema chrysostoma	75	VU
South-east Southern Whiteface Aphelocephala leucopsis leucopsis	104	VU
South-eastern Hooded Robin Melanodryas cucullata cucullata	76	VU
Diamond Firetail Stagonopleura guttata	52	VU

CR (PE): Critically Endangered (Possibly Extinct), CR: Critically Endangered, EN: Endangered, VU: Vulnerable, NT: Near Threatened.

Country

We identified 460 First Peoples on whose Country threatened bird taxa occur and could be subject to management. Of these groups, 92 had 10 or more threatened bird taxa occurring on their country (Figure 2(b), 20% of all groups) and 4 had 20 or more: the Ngarrindjeri people of south-east South Australia, the Nywaigi of the Wet Tropics of north Queensland, the Wiradjuri of central New South Wales (NSW) and the Yuin of the south coast of NSW. At the other end of the scale, over half of the groups (54%) had five or fewer taxa. Almost all were from drier parts of the continent and supported widespread taxa that are either declining (e.g. boobook ssp., whiteface spp.) or are naturally scarce (e.g. Grey Falcon Falco hypoleucos).

Threats

Of the 199 threats to Australian threatened birds (Garnett et al. 2024) 95 affect imperilled bird taxa on First Peoples’ Country. The threats affecting most taxa are an increased frequency or length of droughts (82 taxa) and an increase in the frequency, scale or intensity of fire (65), rising temperature and heatwaves (64) and cat predation (60). All except six threats affect bird taxa on Country of more than one First Peoples’ group, the exceptions being habitat loss caused by diamond mining which threatens Grey Range Thick-billed Grasswren Amytornis modestus obscurior on Country of Barkandji People; gamba grass Andropogon gayanus promoting fire which may be affecting the Tiwi Hooded Robin Melanodryas cucullatus melvillensis on Country of Tiwi People; house mouse Mus musculus predation and mirror bush Coprosma repens invasion which are tentatively proposed as threats to Furneaux White-fronted Tern Sterna striata incerta on islands managed by truwana Rangers; and Swamp Wallaby Wallabia bicolor grazing, Bell Miner Manorina melanophrys competition and Laughing Kookaburra Dacelo novaeguineae predation, all of which affect Helmeted Honeyeaters Lichenostomus melanops cassidix on Country of the Wurundjeri People.

Overall, imperilled birds on First Peoples’ Country are subject to 78.9% of the total threat load on Australian threatened birds (Figure 3; see Garnett et al. 2019, 2024 for the derivation of threat load). As with the national threat load, the highest threat load is being exerted by climate change (34.0%) with 24.8% of threat load on First Peoples’ lands followed by change in invasive species (23.5%, 19.1%), habitat destruction and degradation (19.4%, 17.8%), and change in fire regime (19.0%, 14.0%). The patterns are very similar for the knowledge needed to manage the threats and the application of that knowledge.

Figure 3. Percentage of total threat load to Australian imperilled birds on Country of First Peoples, and other lands within Australian territory from which First Peoples were absent when colonisation occurred (mostly oceanic islands), the knowledge needs and the need for management across seven threat classes (from Kearney et al. 2023).

All but 15 of the taxa occurring on First Peoples’ Country are currently monitored, mostly at a reasonable standard, but scores are generally low for the linkages between monitoring and management and, particularly, for any trends in demographic parameters – that is, most taxa are recorded as present or absent, or counted, but little detail is collected on life history parameters (e.g. nest success, survivorship; Figure 4). The proportion monitored by First Peoples is not known.

Figure 4. Opportunities to improve the monitoring of imperilled birds living on Country of First Peoples in Australia. Bars show the current quality of data collection across 10 monitoring metrics (data from Verdon et al. 2024).

Some birds need to be located before they can be monitored or managed. Four taxa have not been seen for many years and may be Extinct (Garnett et al. 2022): the Buff-breasted Buttonquail Turnix olivii for which the last independently confirmed records were from Country of the Kaanju people on Cape York Peninsula (Webster et al. 2022), Coxen’s Fig-Parrot Cyclopsitta coxeni which formerly occurred on lands of First Peoples’ groups in north-eastern NSW and south-east Queensland, Cape Range Rufous Grasswren last seen on lands of Baiyungu, Thalanyji and Yinigurdira Peoples of North West Cape, and the Tiwi Hooded Robin on the Tiwi Islands (Garnett and Baker 2021).

Discussion

The published understanding of birds in Australia, particularly their conservation and management, has been largely constrained to western scientific studies of their biology and behaviours. Even so, early ecologists and ornithologists noted the special relationships between birds and First People’s food, life and culture and often relied on First Peoples to find and understand species they observed. A small field of ethnobiology of birds also exists (Garde 2017; Clarke 2023). Birds are sometimes highlighted by First Peoples as part of the details of spiritual connections and responsibilities to Country. As noted by Leonard Bowaynu, Traditional Owner of Maringa Country in Arnhem Land:

‘We have Gumulurru (Yolŋu Matha for Far Eastern Curlew) in our songlines and ceremonies and many other special birds in our culture.’

Relationships between First Peoples, birds and Country are complex and diverse across Australia. One aspect of this relationship has been the focus of this survey which summarises the intersection between First Peoples’ Country and the distributions of imperilled Australian bird taxa. Our survey highlights: (i) the ubiquity of potential engagement; (ii) the nature and the origin of the threats; and (iii) the types of opportunity for ornithological research and bird conservation to support First Country peoples engagement with birds, including those that are threatened.

Ubiquity of potential engagement

Virtually all First Peoples have at least one threatened bird taxon on their Country that could benefit from their management, and that First Peoples have Country across all of Australia as well as offshore islands they occupied or visited. The actual number of groups is probably an under-estimate as the mapping of Country is incomplete and inexact. Some groups have well-defined and widely recognised identities, possibly as a consequence of colonisation processes (Blackburn 2002), but many do not. For many First Peoples’ groups, the taxa on their Country are distributed across Country of many other groups but that does not mean that any individual group cannot make important contributions to their conservation should they choose to do so: indeed, a range of First Peoples’ groups are already collaborating amongst themselves and with others in the conservation management of wide-ranging imperilled species such as Night Parrot Pezoporus occidentalis (Torre 2023).²

Many of the widespread taxa occur in the arid zone and the underlying reasons for the observed declines in population are poorly known. For example, climate change may be affecting the two subspecies of Southern Boobook Ninox boobook boobook and N. b. ocellata and Southern Whiteface Aphelocephala leucopsis leucopsis and A. l. castaneiventris (Ehmke et al. 2021; Loyn et al. 2021) but how that is mediated is unknown and there is similar ignorance about the reasons for the rarity of Grey Falcon and Princess Parrot Polytelis alexandrae. Many threatened Australian mammals have ranges that overlap the arid zone birds, and the traditional knowledge of First Peoples that is pivotal to understanding what has been happening to arid zone mammal taxa, and to their trajectories (Southwell et al. 2023), could also be applied to arid zone birds.

At the other end of the scale are the Peoples and Country that are essential for either large numbers of taxa or have the only populations of a single taxon. Most of these places have been the subject of intensive development, often for more than a century. Moreover, relationships to Country have been challenged by First Peoples’ access to land and decisions on how birds and habitats should be managed. However, engagement with Country, including the birds, can form the basis for ‘Indigenous Nation (re)building’ even where development has been intense (Hemming et al. 2017). What our review shows is that these opportunities are present for all Country and could be mediated and enhanced through collaborative work on threatened bird taxa.

The nature and the origin of the threats

None of the 95 threats identified as affecting imperilled birds on First Peoples’ Country is being caused by the First Peoples themselves. Four of the six classes of threat – habitat loss, changes in fire regime, invasive species and over-harvesting – began with the first European settlement of Australia in 1788. Even where habitat loss has ceased, a legacy of fragmentation continues to affect the viability of threatened species populations (Stevens et al. 2018; Pinto et al. 2023). In much of Australia, disruption to active management of fire, which is essential for many bird taxa (Woinarski and Legge 2013), probably began even before the actual settlers arrived given the impact of disease on many First Peoples (Crosby 2004). Invasive species also often ran ahead of the wave of settlement with all of the 12 exotic wild animals, 11 feral domesticated animals, 17 exotic plants and one disease that are threatening bird taxa on First Peoples’ Country having been introduced to Australia before 1900 (see Supplementary Table S3 for full list of alien species threatening bird taxa on First Peoples’ lands). There are also 3 native animals that have been introduced beyond their native range that represent a threat as well as 31 native animals, 3 native plants and 3 endemic diseases that are causing problems for birds today because of changes to their environment arising from settlement (see Garnett and Baker 2021). While Indigenous Peoples outside Australia are sometimes accused of over-consumption of taxa through hunting, fishing or harvesting (Estrada et al. 2022; Lynch and Genco 2022), in Australia none of the five examples of over-exploitation as a current threat have any connection to First Peoples on whose land they occur. Historically, all eight post-1788 extinctions of Australian birds arising from over-harvesting were caused by European settlers (Woinarski et al. 2024).

The Impact of two other threat classes is more recent. Pollution is deemed to be a threat to just three taxa. However, climate change, including its influence on changes in fire regime, is now the major threat to Australian threatened birds (Garnett et al. 2024). First Peoples have no substantive causal responsibility for either of these. The 10 taxa affected by pollution include 5 owls that may be affected by rodenticides, 4 other taxa affected by agricultural or mining runoff and one seabird that consumes plastic waste. For climate change, Australians are emitting nearly four times the global average in greenhouse gases (World Bank 2020), but First Peoples are likely to be responsible for a proportion of those emissions that is well below even their low share of the population (Wood and Garnett 2009).

Internationally, there has been agreement to create ‘funding arrangements for responding to loss and damage associated with the adverse effects of climate change’ (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 2022) with rich countries establishing a funding agreement to support poorer countries. There has been a call for similar arrangements internationally for the loss of biodiversity (Roe et al. 2023). An argument can also be mounted for applying such principles domestically. Internationally, attribution of ‘loss and damage’ of biodiversity in the global south to particular sets of consumers in the global north is technically difficult because of ambiguous links between different countries. By comparison, the loss and damage to the biodiversity on First Peoples’ Country is unarguable. Establishing a domestic fund to assist First Peoples respond to loss and damage to biodiversity associated with the adverse effects of settlement could be one element of what, by rights, should be a much larger fund that supports First Peoples’ response to impacts across many fields of human endeavour. The important principle is that the allocation of resources to such a fund would be a moral and legal right of First Peoples, not a form of welfare and charity. The willingness of the broader Australian community to pay for First Peoples’ land and sea management is known to be very high (Zander and Garnett 2011) but should be viewed through the lens of restorative and inter-generational justice (Motupalli 2018; Schapper 2018) rather than policies that fail to recognise the historical contingency of threats to biodiversity on Country. A moral justification for such funding would also subvert narratives that portray First Peoples as deserving but passive or helpless victims lacking agency to overcome environmental problems, as this can result in policies that interfere with aspirations for self-determination (Reo et al. 2017).

Types of opportunity

The third message from this survey concerns the nature of the actions needed on First Peoples’ Country to reverse threatened species declines and restore landscape function. It is important to reiterate the need to recognise the unique systems of rights, relationships and responsibilities between First Peoples and their Country and how this influences why, how and who has rights to make decisions about Country, what is deemed a threat and the most appropriate action, and people, to respond to a matter of concern (Campion et al. 2023). The concept of ‘threatened species’ does not necessarily have the same meaning for First Peoples as it does under Australian law. Also, while all species are likely to have cultural significance in some form, the taxa that are identified and prominent in the culture of a First Peoples’ group are not necessarily those that are privileged by government legislation, either by listing as threatened or by other means (e.g. Bangalang et al. 2022). The focus on threatened species as distinct from the natural, social and cultural environment within which they occur also contrasts with holistic world views that underpin First Peoples’ interactions with the environment (Lynch et al. 2010).

That said, the presence of threatened taxa on Country can provide many opportunities for engagement in management by those First Peoples who choose to become involved. The types of opportunity vary with location, taxon and threat but the classes of threat also provide an indication of the types of activity that will be needed to manage the threat (Kearney et al. 2023). Of the six classes of threat mitigation action, two stand out as being particularly likely to benefit from First Peoples’ action – invasive species control and fire management. Both are already core activities of many Indigenous ranger groups (National Indigenous Australians Agency 2023). While most activity is in remote areas over which First Peoples have primary management responsibility, both physically and culturally (Herse et al. 2020), there is increasing attention being paid to increasing the opportunities for First Peoples to resume fire and other forms of land and sea management in more heavily settled regions of the continent (Robinson et al. 2023). Control of invasive species is more complex in some cases given the long time since many of the species arrived and the cultural attachment that has developed between some invasive species and the First Peoples on whose Country they occur (Robinson et al. 2005; Trigger 2008) and have become important in local First Peoples’ livelihoods (e.g. Water Buffalo Bubalus bubalis; Austin and Garnett 2011). The relationships between First Peoples and the landscape in which the invasive species occur also requires management to be tailored to both biological and cultural priorities for land use (Bangalang et al. 2022). Nevertheless, and notwithstanding diverse values around threatened species that can sometimes lead to conflict (Crowley et al. 2017; Wehi et al. 2023), many First Peoples are currently contributing pivotally to invasive species control (Leiper et al. 2018).

Mitigation of habitat loss and degradation has fewer obvious links to First Peoples. This is because the complexities of tenure, even on land with recognised connections to a Native Title group, mean that the Traditional Owners can have only limited influence on land clearing, even if they wish to engage. Nevertheless, habitat restoration and the provision of refuges are going to be essential components of responses to this threat (Garnett and Franklin 2014), with opportunities for First Peoples’ Country to make a substantial contribution. First Peoples are already playing an important role in combating the threat posed by climate change, particularly through their broad-scale adoption and successful implementation of fire management programmes in northern Australia that are designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. Edwards et al. 2021).

The ‘other’ threat category also provides some opportunities for First Peoples’ involvement because it includes the threats that are currently causing declines for which no explanation is available and which needs active research and field observations. The only threat categories to which First Peoples are unlikely to be able to make significant contributions to mitigation are pollution and over-exploitation, with all the sub-threats within these classes deriving from specific actions that have no connection to First Peoples’ land.

One other aspect of threatened species management to which First Peoples already make many contributions but could be more heavily involved is survey and monitoring. Monitoring is often overlooked but should be integrated into every adaptive management cycle (Lindenmayer et al. 2012). Some First Peoples are likely to have been monitoring themselves and be willing to share their knowledge of population trends and cycles. ’Knowledge of Country’ held by First Peoples is also invaluable in helping to locate imperilled bird species that are highly localised or reclusive, and hence missed in broader surveys of population distribution, size and trends (e.g. for White-throated Grasswren; Bardon 2022). First Peoples’ skills in reading the environments in which they live can differ from those of visiting scientists (Ward‐Fear et al. 2019) and can complement many of the more technical approaches to monitoring now being applied (Ruscalleda-Alvarez et al. 2023; Southwell et al. 2023). Because First Peoples have a long-term connection to Country lacking among most scientists visiting a region, particularly in remote and regional Australia, there is also likely to be an understanding of the biology of some threatened birds that can start to fill the gaps in knowledge of threats and how to manage them (detailed in Figure 3) and in monitoring (detailed in Figure 4). While First Peoples may have knowledge of trends in bird populations and of threats on their Country, currently only 11 taxa were known to be subject to monitoring by Indigenous ranger groups in 2020 (Verdon et al. 2024).

Given the increasing involvement of First Peoples in monitoring other classes of animals and plants (Leiper et al. 2018), bird monitoring is an area where partnerships could well be strengthened. Yet it is important to emphasise that First Peoples’ involvement in monitoring and research activities is not just based on the knowledge that First Peoples are willing to share with scientists. Rather, partnerships need to be negotiated to ensure that First Peoples’ involvement and Indigenous Intellectual and Cultural Property Rights are negotiated and sustained with free, full and informed consent. This might require data collection protocols and data ownership agreements to underpin bird surveys conducted on First Peoples’ Country (Carroll et al. 2022; Jennings et al. 2023). Supporting First Peoples’ evaluations of bird research and monitoring activities can offer valuable mechanisms to negotiate and monitor these agreements. This can enable First People collaborators to provide feedback on the goals, actions and impact of bird monitoring and research – and for researchers to check and adapt to ensure the relevance of their research and to support opportunities to review and co-author drafts of publications (e.g. Robinson et al. 2023).

Implications for Australian threatened bird conservation

Recognising the primacy of First Peoples’ connection to Country and the threatened species that live there has substantial implications for conservation practice and Caring for Country in Australia. This should start with planning. Currently, the extent of involvement of First Peoples in planning for the management of imperilled species and threats in Australia is extremely patchy (Duncan et al. 2018), ranging from none at all through to First Peoples’ threatened species management being fully integrated into whole-of-Country plans (e.g. Moorcroft et al. 2012). Such planning could be for places where First Peoples own and manage the land but, as noted, can be an important component of rebuilding connection to Country in heavily settled regions which then has flow-on benefits for the environment (Hemming et al. 2017).

Similar arguments apply to management. While Leiper et al. (2018) identified that 41 threatened bird taxa were managed to some extent by First Peoples, there are many taxa where there is no involvement at all. While some taxa, like the White-throated Grasswren, will only persist if First Peoples’ management of fire in the birds’ habitat is effective (Einoder et al. 2021), with many others there has, to date, been little opportunity either afforded, or sought, for involvement in management by First Peoples. The data provided by this paper can help First Peoples’ groups identify threatened taxa with which they might choose to be involved. This in turn will help conservation managers identify First Peoples’ groups with whom, potentially, they can partner or pass management responsibility to. We note that conservation management by First Peoples for threatened birds, such as the White-throated Grasswren, may also have many other cultural implications and benefits. Conversely, management actions taken by First Peoples for cultural or other reasons may provide collateral benefits for threatened birds. Threatened taxa found on sea Country also require attention, and this could be taken up by Indigenous ranger groups working along the coastline and in and around islands.

One element with which First Peoples’ groups have been heavily involved is monitoring. As with monitoring of Australian birds generally (Verdon et al. 2024), taxa that live on First Peoples’ Country are often not monitored, or not monitored in much of their range. However, there are many taxa where First Peoples may be willing to share their knowledge of trends in abundance, distribution or various aspects of life history that has not been documented. Again, however, First Peoples’ agency should have primacy as has happened with the desert mammals (Southwell et al. 2023). For example, new technologies, such as drones, could enhance monitoring capabilities but also provide new avenues for intrusion into First Peoples’ lives and Country. Guidelines for culturally appropriate application of new technologies can be developed by working collaboratively to understand how technologies should be applied (Macdonald et al. 2021). There is also a need for the birdwatchers, scientists, managers and consultants who undertake a high proportion of monitoring of threatened birds in Australia (Verdon et al.) to be aware of the need for consultation with Traditional Owners to ensure appropriate consent (and collaboration) before accessing Country − for example, for bird research, birdwatching, bird monitoring or conducting threatened species assessments. While this is a legal requirement on some Country, there is also potential for far greater consultation and potentially collaboration in places where ownership of Country is not recognised by governments. While ethical birdwatching guidelines stress the need to respect the rights of other people (American Birding Association 2020; BirdLife Australia 2021), there is potential to stress the need to respect and acknowledge First Peoples’ lands, customs, traditions and laws/lore. Work on joint management of protected areas between governments and First Peoples suggests that a respect for culturally appropriate process can lead to long-lasting and mutually beneficial collaborative partnerships; other approaches can otherwise simply perpetuate inequitable power relationships (Stacey et al. 2013).

Conclusion

Most Australian imperilled bird taxa occur on lands owned by or with some affiliation to First Peoples. First Peoples have long developed and implemented a holistic management of Country that provides many benefits to biodiversity. In some areas, this ongoing management is pivotal for the conservation of many imperilled bird species, and some imperilled bird species occur only on lands owned and managed by First Peoples. Increasingly, such management needs to target threats that have been introduced as a consequence of European colonisation. However, especially in areas that have undergone heavy land transformation, the current involvement of First Peoples in conservation of those birds may be limited. That does not mean that there are not many opportunities to increase such involvement to the benefit of the imperilled species, broader environmental health and the national culture. By showing which imperilled bird species occur on Country of which First Peoples across Australia, the results should also enhance ornithological research in Australia, and of this journal, in its aspirations to further the conservation and management of the country’s birds. Conservation research and management can only succeed through collaboration with First Peoples of Australia. Through cross-tabulating the distributions of imperilled birds and their geographical connection with Country of First Peoples, we hope to enhance cross-cultural collaborations that empower local First Peoples’ voices to inform how we understand and care for birds.

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge all First Peoples and Traditional Owners of the Country on which the birds from this study are based and are grateful to all First Peoples for their immense contribution to the knowledge and conservation of Australia’s birds. First Peoples’ knowledge of native Australian birds, their lifecycles and habitat needs is profound and continues to make substantial contributions to the conservation management of many species. We are grateful to all bird experts for contributing knowledge to the Action Plan for Australian Birds 2020, many of whom have contributed to past editions. We are immensely grateful to the volunteers and birdwatchers who have spent their time and money to survey birds across Australia and contribute to the atlases of birds in Australia, and more recently Birdata (managed by BirdLife Australia) to help us understand how species populations are going. Financial support for that project was received from the Australian Bird Environment Fund, BirdLife Australia, Charles Darwin University, Biosis Pty Ltd, Auchmeddan and the Wettenhall Environment Trust.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed at https://doi.org/10.1080/01584197.2023.2290008.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

¹ Language and terminology protocols in this paper: We use the term ‘First Peoples’ for Indigenous Peoples living in Australia but ‘Indigenous Peoples’ for those living in other countries or where the term is used in formal documentation. We use lower-case ‘people’ when referring to First Peoples individuals but, when referring to groups, capitalise the first letters of First Peoples, Indigenous and Traditional Owner to show respect for the diversity of cultures and languages that are captured within the term (e.g. like F in French; see Garnett et al. 2018).

² The names of the First Nations groups on whose Country this species occurs have been withheld at their request. For this reason it is also absent from Supplementary Table S1.